Manatt’s new AI Health Policy Tracker arrived with the kind of modest launch that only later reveals its weight, somewhere between the cacophony of the White House’s December executive order and the quiet panic of in-house counsels watching state legislatures move faster than their compliance calendars. Technically, it’s a database. a tool for regulation. However, after spending some time with it and navigating the intricate network of bills, vetoes, executive orders, and agency signals it brings together, it seems as though something more significant has suddenly come into focus.
It’s difficult to ignore the timing. In the first few months of 2026 alone, 43 states have introduced over 240 AI-related bills, nearly matching the total from 2025. The fact that only Wyoming and North Dakota have remained on the sidelines is noteworthy in and of itself, akin to the two children at recess feigning ignorance of the game. Everyone is suddenly attempting to map an environment that won’t stay still long enough to be mapped, including hospital systems, telehealth startups, payors, pharmacy benefit managers, and even the tiny clinical decision-support vendors that no one outside the industry has heard of.
The tracker discreetly solves that issue. A Politico subscription, three browser tabs for state legislatures, one for CMS, one for the FDA’s changing software guidelines, and a colleague in Washington, D.C. who would text you when something broke were all necessary for anyone attempting to follow AI health policy up until this point. Manatt has successfully combined that disjointed workflow into a single resource that is arranged according to theme, jurisdiction, and regulatory life stage. That consolidation is more important than the law firm’s restrained press materials indicate for a sector that has relied on rumors and email forwards for the past two and a half years.
The tracker feels almost overdue because of its political component as well. Late last year, Executive Order 14365 was issued, directing Commerce to release an evaluation by March 11 and directing the DOJ to contest “onerous” state AI laws. By the time Manatt’s most recent newsletter was released, that list had not yet been created. According to reports, White House outreach has put direct pressure on state legislators. For example, Florida’s AI Bill of Rights was reportedly shelved by House Speaker Daniel Perez despite Senate passage and Governor DeSantis’s support, and Utah’s HB 286 collapsed after the sponsor received a letter claiming it went against the administration’s AI agenda. In early March, more than fifty Republican state legislators from 24 states retaliated, calling on the Trump administration to cease obstructing state initiatives. The tracker is the only resource that is currently cataloging this peculiar tug-of-war in real time.
Manatt’s tool is especially helpful because it captures the peculiar thematic overlap between states. Legislatures that otherwise have little in common politically are seeing bills that resemble Illinois HB 1806, California SB 243, and Texas HB 149. disclosures from chatbots. guardrails for mental health. supervision by clinicians. Payor downcoding limitations. Only when viewed collectively do the patterns become apparent, and the tracker is where they are initially found.
It’s possible that in five years, regulators themselves will silently rely on this kind of tool. In the field of health policy, strange things have occurred. As this develops, it’s difficult to ignore how frequently the most powerful resources in a field are created by the attorneys hired to interpret it rather than by the government. It’s possible that Manatt recently constructed the one for digital medicine.
It’s still unclear if the tracker will become essential or just helpful. For now, though, it’s the closest thing the industry has to a stable benchmark in a year already overrun by movement.
